Mr. Speaker, the families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls want justice, but they also want to be heard. Shockingly, the inquiry commission only lists 90 names, as opposed to the 4,000 that the Native Women's Association had identified as murdered and missing indigenous—

The families of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls want to be heard. The government has made solemn commitments, as we all have. We want the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls to go well. We want the families to be heard. We want to get resolution to the reason so many were lost, to the reason that so many families have not been willing to put their trust in police.

The inquiry commission's last count only listed a couple of hundred names of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The RCMP thinks there are 2,000. The Native Women's Association of Canada has counted more like 4,000.

On National Aboriginal Day, which is starting tomorrow, we honour the families left behind and the women and girls lost, but we have a long way to go to achieve closure for the families who have suffered through the loss or disappearance of a loved one.

Indigenous women are disproportionately the victims of violence, including murder. Indigenous women are seven times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women. Indigenous women make up 4% of the female population, but they make up the majority of missing and murdered women.

The suspicion around the reason there are so few names in the inquiry website is that there are privacy and process concerns. We have talked with the minister about whether the government is in fact doing everything it can to get those files transferred over, but it has not been totally clear.

Over the past few weeks, the minister has said, “We are confident that the commission has the tools, the resources, and the networks to ensure that voices of families are heard and that they have the support they need.” However, that is not what we are hearing the families and survivors saying.

During the pre-inquiry process, there were 17 face-to-face meetings with more than 2,000 survivors and their families, as well as the front-line service providers. The RCMP says there are 1,200 women and girls, but the inquiry has really just a handful in comparison.

Dawn Lavell-Harvard, when she was the president of the Native Women's Association, said that the names of the missing women were in fact shared with the Liberal cabinet ministers during the pre-inquiry phase, so my question tonight is this: why is there such a discrepancy between the data that we know the government has and what has been given to the commissioners?

Yvonne JonesLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the opportunity to reaffirm the government's commitment to ending the ongoing national tragedy, recognizing that I do so on traditional territory of the Algonquin nation on the eve of National Aboriginal Day in Canada.

Our government is committed to ending the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We are the first government to recognize that this is indeed a tragedy. We have launched a truly independent inquiry that is completely national in scope. We are confident that the commissioners have the background, the experience, and the mandate to lead this inquiry properly.

After decades of loss, discrimination, and mistreatment, families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are speaking, and they feel they are being heard.

The minister was very pleased to see the positive feedback from the first sessions that were held in Whitehorse. An independent national inquiry operating free from direction or interference of the government, and I want to make that clear, we know was essential to keeping our commitment and a vital step toward reconciliation with indigenous people.

In the context of the member's question, I would remind the House that the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls was established under part I of the Inquiries Act. It is independent from the federal government. This commission has the authority to determine how best to accomplish its mandate. The commissioners decide how, when, and where to hear from witnesses, including survivors, families, and loved ones.

The purpose of the pre-inquiry engagement, which included 17 face-to-face meetings with one or more federal ministers, was to hear primarily from families, loved ones, and survivors about the design of the inquiry. The pre-inquiry gathered recommendations and feedback on issues such as who would lead the inquiry, who would participate in the inquiry, and how it should be conducted to help inform the design of the commission. All of the 5,272 submissions received from academia, government groups, indigenous organizations, individuals, members of Parliament or legislatures, and organizations were all shared with the commission so it could read what families, loved ones, and survivors really wanted, and to be able to inform the inquiry and to accomplish the goals that it has been tasked with.

In sharing the information with the commission, we have been equally aware of the importance of respecting the wishes of the many individuals who participated in the pre-inquiry phase on the condition that their participation would remain anonymous. In these instances, no personal information was shared. During the pre-inquiry, the department also assisted in areas such as making travel arrangements and keeping registration lists.

I want to assure the member that progress is being made. We are committed to ensure that this is done, and it is done properly and in an independent way. I ask for her support in this ongoing inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's hope for the inquiry and hope that also maybe she would be able to get me clarification that she did not have tonight on the exact number discrepancy. Because this is a nation-to-nation commitment that the government has made, it is ultimately the government that is responsible for ensuring that it go well, for all of us, our shared responsibility in this House that it go well.

I want to quote from a very critical piece in Maclean's magazine. It says:

In their reports on the Canadian human rights crisis of murders and disappearances of indigenous women and girls, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that Indian Act sex discrimination is one of the root causes of the murders and disappearances. It is a matter of life and death.

I also note Sharon MacIvor having said that the consequences of keeping women unequal are known and they should be unacceptable to all Canadians: stigma, exclusion, second-class citizen status, and the risk of violence.

Can the member describe to me the government's position around how sex-based discrimination—

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith already knows, today we debated Bill S-3 in the House, which would make changes to the Indian Act with respect to sex-based discrimination. We are encouraging members to support those amendments, and we are hopeful that they will, as Bill S-3 goes through the House.

As well, the government, under the direction of the minister, has said it will enter into a phase-two process to review other gender imbalances and discriminatory clauses that exist within the Indian Act and to make those changes.

I also want to ensure the member this evening that the Government of Canada continues to support the commission on missing and murdered indigenous women to the extent possible within the law. We are committed to bringing an end to the cycle of violence against indigenous women and girls in Canada. We are not waiting for the recommendations of the inquiry to act; we are already—

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a follow-up to my question earlier about the 911 communications system in Nova Scotia.

Currently, as members know, there are two main facilities in Nova Scotia that deal with 93% of all ambulance, fire, and police emergency calls, dispatching the RCMP and so on. One of these facilities is in Truro and the other is in Dartmouth. They are an hour apart, which provides for redundancy. In the event that something happens in Dartmouth, then the Truro office can pick up the load, and if something happens in Truro, the Dartmouth office can pick up the load, which is providing that necessary redundancy.

Recently, the RCMP has suggested it may close the Truro office and move it to Dartmouth where the other police communications centre is located. I was concerned at first because of the jobs, but lately I have become aware that it is a safety issue as well.

Through access to information, I was able to access a report that the RCMP did, which states, “It is not recommended that the two largest police communications operations in Nova Scotia be placed within the same metropolitan area.” That is exactly what the RCMP is proposing to do.

The RCMP report goes on to say, in recommendation number three, that the RCMP “not locate their primary OCC within the Halifax Regional Municipality.” Again, that is exactly what it is proposing to do.

The same report goes on to say that the primary service delivery site should “be outside of HRM due to risks of placing two largest police communications centres in proximity tp each other.”

This is about redundancy. Therefore, there should be a separation between the two centres so that, in the event something happens in Dartmouth, Truro could pick up the load and vice versa.

I went a little further because I needed to know more about this. I did not want to say anything that was not accurate. Therefore, I contacted one of the major police forces in Canada and I asked what it used as a manual for emergency measures. It referred me to the Homeland Security manual that it uses. This police force serves seven million people. This is from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. It confirms exactly what the RCMP report said. It states, “Organizations should have adequate, separate locations to ensure execution of their functions.”

That same police force also provided me with another report from the National Emergency Number Association. These are reports that this police force and most police forces in Canada use to set up their emergency measures program. The report says that the document is prepared solely for the use of 911 system service providers. It states, “It is desirable to have at least two layers of redundancy for each major component of...[an emergency services office].”

Here we have three reports saying that to consolidate these emergency measures communications centres into one municipality puts Nova Scotians at risk. In fact, in this case, they would both be located in Dartmouth if the RCMP goes ahead with this. The decision has not been made yet. Hopefully, it will not make that decision, because this is the opposite of what everybody else is doing. It is reverse redundancy. Most places are going for redundancy and trying to make sure they have separate locations for their communications. If the RCMP does this it would be reverse redundancy and will put Nova Scotians at risk. The word “risk” is in the RCMP report.

Therefore, my question is this. If the RCMP decides to contravene and contradict its own recommendations, who would be held responsible in the event of a disaster when life and limb are lost?

Mark HollandLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his incredible advocacy on behalf of his community, and for raising this issue at this hour.

The RCMP contract relationship has a long history in our country, dating back as early as 1906. Nova Scotia became the first contract jurisdiction in 1932, and for the past 85 years has received exemplary service from the RCMP through what is known as H Division.

The contract relationship sees participating provinces and territories pay 70% of RCMP costs and the federal government pays 30%. Municipalities with populations of less than 15,000 pay 70% of the costs, while the federal government pays 30%. For larger municipalities, the city pays 90% of costs. Finally, since 1991, municipalities that have never before been policed by the RCMP must pay 100% of the contract policing costs. Under the contracts, it is the provinces and municipalities that establish the level of policing, budget, and policing priorities in consultation with the RCMP.

That brings me to the issue raised by my hon. colleague. In terms of the consideration to consolidate the Nova Scotia emergency communications centre, the force is currently conducting a review to examine service delivery as well as facility and human resource requirements across Nova Scotia, not only in the location we are speaking of tonight. Before any decisions are made, the RCMP is committed to reviewing all aspects of the proposed consolidation to ensure the safety and security of Nova Scotians, and the brave women and men of the RCMP.

The current RCMP H Division study will determine what is required to sustain or upgrade the operational communications facility over the next one to five years. It will primarily focus upon operational needs, employee health and safety concerns, and the anticipated costs for the next five to 10 years.

The Treasury Board Secretariat sets out requirements for custodial departments to manage real property, and deputy heads are accountable to their respective ministers and Treasury Board for the management of their assets. Departments are now being audited on their footprint, the amount of space they occupy, and are required to make repayment for excess space in their buildings.

The goal of this study is to engage employees in contributing to decisions relative to their work site, while being operationally minded and fiscally responsible for the assets the RCMP manages moving forward. At the end of that review, the recommendations will be presented to the Nova Scotia divisional executive for a decision of how to best proceed given the overall priorities of H Division.

I understand the member has been in frequent contact with the executive at H Division. I commend the member for his dedication, and for raising this issue of importance to his constituents. I assure the member that no final decisions have been made prior to the review's completion, and I look forward to working with the member on the issue.

In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the brave men and women of the RCMP who continue to put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the quality of the policing service we get, but there would be a question about the quality of the police service we get if there were no way for them to communicate with each other, which would be the case if both of these communication centres were shut down.

When I brought this up last week in the House, I asked about it, and was told that our own police force here, that provides us with protection, is arranging for an offsite location away from this location, so they would ensure redundancy in the event of a disaster after what happened with the armed gunman. Communications actually failed in that case, because there was no way to communicate.

Again, we have three reports all saying that redundancy is so critical. Our own House is saying redundancy is critical. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that redundancy is a critical part of this decision, not just money?

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is clearly a decision that is beyond money, and it is one that is incredibly important. In fact, it cannot be overstated that in policing, effective operational communication is vital to our safety and security. The systems and infrastructure public safety officers use, without question, have to be top-notch, and those investments are absolutely critical.

I look forward to working with him. No decisions have been made on this, but it is an incredibly important issue. The safety of his community, the safety of Nova Scotians, is a top priority for this government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to revisit a question I raised on May 4. I asked the Minister of National Defence why the Liberals were taking away the danger pay from our troops that were currently deployed in the fight against ISIS and were stationed in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan. We had already established that the Minister of National Defence had a very casual relationship with the troops.

We heard from veterans not only on the minister's embellishment of his service record, but also the feeling of service members and their families on the impact it had on their moral state of mind, as they served in the Canadian Armed Forces, knowing the government was trying to undermine their danger pay.

A 27-year veteran stated, “The Defence Minister cannot continue to lead the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, having lost the and respect and trust in this way.”

I acknowledge that the danger pay issue was resolved. After opposition members and Canadians put so much pressure on the government, it had to backtrack. The government was forced to accept a motion I brought forward in the House to restore the danger pay for all troops that were in the fight against ISIS, including those that were stationed in Kuwait, particularly at Camp Arifjan. We know the embarrassment was so much that the Liberals had to insert it into the defence policy review.

Today I want to deal with the track record of the Minister of National Defence over the past year. We have heard from members of the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as veterans, who took great offence with the minister's comments that he was the architect of Operation Medusa. This was not a slip of the tongue. This was something he said from prepared notes in a speech he delivered in India on April 18. He said that on his first appointment to Kandahar in 2006, he was the architect of Operation Medusa. He said it in 2015 as a Liberal candidate.

To show how it impacted upon our veterans and our troops, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Shane Schreiber said that the minister, as a soldier, probably would not have said that, however, the minister the politician thought he could get away with it. He said, “When you are careless with your words as a politician, that can haunt you.” He went on to say, “Any good soldier would not try to steal another soldier's honour.” This is often referred to as stolen valour.

The minister has apologized for that statement, but he has undermined his own credibility because of this statement, which was deliberately misleading not only the House but Canadians and the people he spoke to in India.

We also know he has misled the House on a number of other occasions.

He also said that the pulling our CF-18s from Operation Impact in the war against ISIS was accepted by our allies. He said in December, 2015 that he had not had one discussion about the CF-18s. However, emails sent by officials, which we acquired through an access to information request, showed that the Iraqi minister of defence was clearly focused on Canada's decision to withdraw its CF-18s from the coalition air strikes, asking the minister to reconsider this decision on numerous occasions.

We also know that on numerous occasions, Kurdish officials stated that they wanted to have our CF-18s left in the fight against ISIS, but the Liberal Minister of National Defence brought them home.

We also know that over the past year, the minister has also dealt with this whole issue of—